24 Oct
2012
24 Oct
'12
5:14 a.m.
This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems Fairlight's new flagship
workstations are Linux based:
http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
24 Oct
24 Oct
5:57 a.m.
On Tue, October 23, 2012 8:14 pm, michael noble wrote:
This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems
Fairlight's new flagship
workstations are Linux based:
http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
And yet "Full integration of VST plug-ins and instruments". I suppose that
could be "full integration of the ones that work".
It would be interesting to find out more.
Not that I have any VST plug-ins to play with :)
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
8:16 p.m.
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:57:10 -0700
From: len(a)ovenwerks.net
To: looplog(a)gmail.com
CC: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Fairlight
On Tue, October 23, 2012 8:14 pm, michael noble wrote:
The Lionstracs I mentioned in the other mail also states the same. Probably more related
in this discussion.
"
Beyond Standards
Virtual instruments and effects that you are used to from the
studio, should not be missing on the road. Copy your VST plugins from
MS Windows onto your instrument and load them with the dedicated VST
control interface, directly from the touchscreen.
Analogue to any other sound engine in your instrument, your
VSTi plugins are assigned to the instrument's patch selector pads,
allowing to switch among your VST instruments quckly during your live
performance.
Besides the virtual instruments, you can assign a chain of
VST effect plugins to each instrument. When switching among your VST
instruments, the respective chains of VST effects are automatically
restored along to the virtual instrument."
and also ASIO applications from Windows:
"
Windows ASIO applications
Even though the Lionstracs instruments are not MS Windows
computers, they can host all your Windows audio applications for you.
This is especially handy for virtual studio tools that are not available
as VST plugins. Thanks to an efficient implementation of the ASIO audio
interface standard, your ASIO applications can even reach lower
latencies on the Groove OS than under MS Windows.
Each Lionstracs instrument provides 10 ASIO app hosts, that
is you can run up to ten Windows ASIO apps simultaniously and
immediately switch among them during live performance with the
instrument selector pads on the touch screen and by the sound selector
buttons on the chassis. All MIDI and audio connections to your ASIO
application are automatically established by the Groove OS for you, so
your favourite Windows audio applications are automaticallly, seamlessly
integrated into the overall system of your Lionstracs instrument,
allowing them to utilize all features of your Lionstracs instrument,
e.g. applying the builtin audio effects.
Integrating another Windows ASIO application in your
instrument, doesn't need more than copying the software onto your
instrument and selecting the executable (.exe) file from the dedicated
ASIO control interface, again directly by the integrated touchscreen."
From: http://www.lionstracs.com/groove/
Surely there is no way they can truly claim to be able to handle all and everything when
nobody else seems to have managed that at home. Leaving themselves open for lawsuits of
false advertising??
Dale.
This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems
Fairlight's new flagship
workstations are Linux based:
http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
And yet "Full integration of VST plug-ins and instruments". I suppose that
could be "full integration of the ones that work".
It would be interesting to find out more.
Not that I have any VST plug-ins to play with :)
9:09 p.m.
On 10/24/2012 08:16 AM, Kaza Kore wrote:
If it works, it's not false advertising.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
Date: Tue, 23
Oct 2012 20:57:10 -0700
From: len(a)ovenwerks.net
To: looplog(a)gmail.com
CC: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Fairlight
On Tue, October 23, 2012 8:14 pm, michael noble wrote:
that
This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems
Fairlight's new flagship
workstations are Linux based:
http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
And yet "Full integration of VST plug-ins and instruments". I suppose could be "full integration of the ones that
work".
It would be interesting to find out more.
Not that I have any VST plug-ins to play with :)
The Lionstracs I mentioned in the other mail also states the same.
Probably more related in this discussion.
"
Beyond Standards
Virtual instruments and effects that you are used to from the studio,
should not be missing on the road. Copy your VST plugins from MS Windows
onto your instrument and load them with the dedicated VST control
interface, directly from the touchscreen.
Analogue to any other sound engine in your instrument, your VSTi plugins
are assigned to the instrument's patch selector pads, allowing to switch
among your VST instruments quckly during your live performance.
Besides the virtual instruments, you can assign a chain of VST effect
plugins to each instrument. When switching among your VST instruments,
the respective chains of VST effects are automatically restored along to
the virtual instrument."
and also ASIO applications from Windows:
"
Windows ASIO applications
Even though the Lionstracs instruments are not MS Windows computers,
they can host all your Windows audio applications for you. This is
especially handy for virtual studio tools that are not available as VST
plugins. Thanks to an efficient implementation of the ASIO audio
interface standard, your ASIO applications can even reach lower
latencies on the Groove OS than under MS Windows.
Each Lionstracs instrument provides 10 ASIO app hosts, that is you can
run up to ten Windows ASIO apps simultaniously and immediately switch
among them during live performance with the instrument selector pads on
the touch screen and by the sound selector buttons on the chassis. All
MIDI and audio connections to your ASIO application are automatically
established by the Groove OS for you, so your favourite Windows audio
applications are automaticallly, seamlessly integrated into the overall
system of your Lionstracs instrument, allowing them to utilize all
features of your Lionstracs instrument, e.g. applying the builtin audio
effects.
Integrating another Windows ASIO application in your instrument, doesn't
need more than copying the software onto your instrument and selecting
the executable (.exe) file from the dedicated ASIO control interface,
again directly by the integrated touchscreen."
From: http://www.lionstracs.com/groove/
Surely there is no way they can truly claim to be able to handle all and
everything when nobody else seems to have managed that at home. Leaving
themselves open for lawsuits of false advertising?? 
9:13 p.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 5:16 am, Kaza Kore wrote:
Are there any people or companies that would undertake a lawsuit over this
claim?
If that was the case 90% of music hardware advertising in the past 30
years would be liable for action because of exaggerated claims.
Or to put it another way the bar for marketing BS in the audio hardware
and software industry has been set pretty high by other companies over the
past 30 years or so why point the finger at companies that claim to
provide full support for VST plugins on Linux based systems?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:57:10 -0700
From: len(a)ovenwerks.net
To: looplog(a)gmail.com
CC: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Fairlight
On Tue, October 23, 2012 8:14 pm, michael noble wrote:
The Lionstracs I mentioned in the other mail also states the same.
Probably more related in this discussion.
"
Beyond Standards
Virtual instruments and effects that you are used to from the
studio, should not be missing on the road. Copy your VST plugins from
MS Windows onto your instrument and load them with the dedicated VST
control interface, directly from the touchscreen.
Analogue to any other sound engine in your instrument, your
VSTi plugins are assigned to the instrument's patch selector pads,
allowing to switch among your VST instruments quckly during your live
performance.
Besides the virtual instruments, you can assign a chain of
VST effect plugins to each instrument. When switching among your VST
instruments, the respective chains of VST effects are automatically
restored along to the virtual instrument."
and also ASIO applications from Windows:
"
Windows ASIO applications
Even though the Lionstracs instruments are not MS Windows
computers, they can host all your Windows audio applications for you.
This is especially handy for virtual studio tools that are not available
as VST plugins. Thanks to an efficient implementation of the ASIO audio
interface standard, your ASIO applications can even reach lower
latencies on the Groove OS than under MS Windows.
Each Lionstracs instrument provides 10 ASIO app hosts, that
is you can run up to ten Windows ASIO apps simultaniously and
immediately switch among them during live performance with the
instrument selector pads on the touch screen and by the sound selector
buttons on the chassis. All MIDI and audio connections to your ASIO
application are automatically established by the Groove OS for you, so
your favourite Windows audio applications are automaticallly, seamlessly
integrated into the overall system of your Lionstracs instrument,
allowing them to utilize all features of your Lionstracs instrument,
e.g. applying the builtin audio effects.
Integrating another Windows ASIO application in your
instrument, doesn't need more than copying the software onto your
instrument and selecting the executable (.exe) file from the dedicated
ASIO control interface, again directly by the integrated touchscreen."
From: http://www.lionstracs.com/groove/
Surely there is no way they can truly claim to be able to handle all and
everything when nobody else seems to have managed that at home. Leaving
themselves open for lawsuits of false advertising?? This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems
Fairlight's new flagship
workstations are Linux based:
http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
And yet "Full integration of VST plug-ins and instruments". I suppose
that
could be "full integration of the ones that work".
It would be interesting to find out more.
Not that I have any VST plug-ins to play with :)
9:41 p.m.
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 15:37:31 Patrick Shirkey did opine:
On Thu, October 25, 2012 5:16 am, Kaza Kore wrote:
Are there any people or companies that would undertake a lawsuit over
this claim?
If that was the case 90% of music hardware advertising in the past 30
years would be liable for action because of exaggerated claims.
Or to put it another way the bar for marketing BS in the audio hardware
and software industry has been set pretty high by other companies over
the past 30 years or so why point the finger at companies that claim to
provide full support for VST plugins on Linux based systems?
While I'm 100% in agreement Patrick, I'll have to confess that my first
thought was the question of a GPL violation. Fairlight or Farlight has if
my memory can be trusted, a rep for keeping their code locked well away
from prying eyes even when it was running on some M68k hardware that looked
a lot like a big box amiga.
I'll get me coat...
Date:
Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:57:10 -0700
From: len(a)ovenwerks.net
To: looplog(a)gmail.com
CC: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Fairlight
On Tue, October 23, 2012 8:14 pm, michael noble wrote:
The Lionstracs I mentioned in the other mail also states the same.
Probably more related in this discussion.
"
Beyond Standards
Virtual instruments and effects that you are used to from the
studio, should not be missing on the road. Copy your VST plugins from
MS Windows onto your instrument and load them with the dedicated VST
control interface, directly from the touchscreen.
Analogue to any other sound engine in your instrument, your
VSTi plugins are assigned to the instrument's patch selector pads,
allowing to switch among your VST instruments quckly during your live
performance.
Besides the virtual instruments, you can assign a chain of
VST effect plugins to each instrument. When switching among your VST
instruments, the respective chains of VST effects are automatically
restored along to the virtual instrument."
and also ASIO applications from Windows:
"
Windows ASIO applications
Even though the Lionstracs instruments are not MS Windows
computers, they can host all your Windows audio applications for you.
This is especially handy for virtual studio tools that are not
available
as VST plugins. Thanks to an efficient implementation of the ASIO
audio interface standard, your ASIO applications can even reach
lower
latencies on the Groove OS than under MS Windows.
Each Lionstracs instrument provides 10 ASIO app hosts, that
is you can run up to ten Windows ASIO apps simultaniously and
immediately switch among them during live performance with the
instrument selector pads on the touch screen and by the sound selector
buttons on the chassis. All MIDI and audio connections to your ASIO
application are automatically established by the Groove OS for you, so
your favourite Windows audio applications are automaticallly,
seamlessly
integrated into the overall system of your Lionstracs instrument,
allowing them to utilize all features of your Lionstracs instrument,
e.g. applying the builtin audio effects.
Integrating another Windows ASIO application in your
instrument, doesn't need more than copying the software onto your
instrument and selecting the executable (.exe) file from the dedicated
ASIO control interface, again directly by the integrated touchscreen."
From: http://www.lionstracs.com/groove/
Surely there is no way they can truly claim to be able to handle all
and everything when nobody else seems to have managed that at home.
Leaving themselves open for lawsuits of false advertising?? This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems
Fairlight's new flagship
workstations are Linux based:
http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
And yet "Full integration of VST plug-ins and instruments". I suppose
that
could be "full integration of the ones that work".
It would be interesting to find out more.
Not that I have any VST plug-ins to play with :)
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up!
It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable.
-- Spock, "The Enterprise Incident", stardate 5027.3
10:38 p.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 6:41 am, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 15:37:31 Patrick Shirkey
did opine:
I'm not the best person to make contact with them directly but that
shouldn't stop anyone else from asking them to release their Open Source
code if they haven't already done so.
My advice is to explain the positive aspects as well as the legal aspects.
Gene is right that their reputation proceeds them (unfairlight ?) but they
have a new CEO who may not be aware of their legal obligations in regards
to the GPL and open source. Just don't expect them to move quickly as they
have a fairly glacial internal culture and they are pretty combative if
cornered and poked.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Thu, October 25, 2012 5:16 am, Kaza Kore
wrote:
Are there any people or companies that would undertake a lawsuit over
this claim?
If that was the case 90% of music hardware advertising in the past 30
years would be liable for action because of exaggerated claims.
Or to put it another way the bar for marketing BS in the audio hardware
and software industry has been set pretty high by other companies over
the past 30 years or so why point the finger at companies that claim to
provide full support for VST plugins on Linux based systems?
While I'm 100% in agreement Patrick, I'll have to confess that my first
thought was the question of a GPL violation. Fairlight or Farlight has if
my memory can be trusted, a rep for keeping their code locked well away
from prying eyes even when it was running on some M68k hardware that
looked
a lot like a big box amiga.
I'll get me coat...
Date:
Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:57:10 -0700
From: len(a)ovenwerks.net
To: looplog(a)gmail.com
CC: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] Fairlight
On Tue, October 23, 2012 8:14 pm, michael noble wrote:
> This hasn't come up on list yet. It seems Fairlight's new flagship
> workstations are Linux based:
>
> http://au.fairlight.com.au/product/quantum/technical/
And yet "Full integration of VST plug-ins and instruments". I suppose
that
could be "full integration of the ones that work".
It would be interesting to find out more.
Not that I have any VST plug-ins to play with :)
The Lionstracs I mentioned in the other mail also states the same.
Probably more related in this discussion.
"
Beyond Standards
Virtual instruments and effects that you are used to from the
studio, should not be missing on the road. Copy your VST plugins from
MS Windows onto your instrument and load them with the dedicated VST
control interface, directly from the touchscreen.
Analogue to any other sound engine in your instrument, your
VSTi plugins are assigned to the instrument's patch selector pads,
allowing to switch among your VST instruments quckly during your live
performance.
Besides the virtual instruments, you can assign a chain of
VST effect plugins to each instrument. When switching among your VST
instruments, the respective chains of VST effects are automatically
restored along to the virtual instrument."
and also ASIO applications from Windows:
"
Windows ASIO applications
Even though the Lionstracs instruments are not MS Windows
computers, they can host all your Windows audio applications for you.
This is especially handy for virtual studio tools that are not
available
as VST plugins. Thanks to an efficient implementation of the ASIO
audio interface standard, your ASIO applications can even reach
lower
latencies on the Groove OS than under MS Windows.
Each Lionstracs instrument provides 10 ASIO app hosts, that
is you can run up to ten Windows ASIO apps simultaniously and
immediately switch among them during live performance with the
instrument selector pads on the touch screen and by the sound selector
buttons on the chassis. All MIDI and audio connections to your ASIO
application are automatically established by the Groove OS for you, so
your favourite Windows audio applications are automaticallly,
seamlessly
integrated into the overall system of your Lionstracs instrument,
allowing them to utilize all features of your Lionstracs instrument,
e.g. applying the builtin audio effects.
Integrating another Windows ASIO application in your
instrument, doesn't need more than copying the software onto your
instrument and selecting the executable (.exe) file from the dedicated
ASIO control interface, again directly by the integrated touchscreen."
From: http://www.lionstracs.com/groove/
Surely there is no way they can truly claim to be able to handle all
and everything when nobody else seems to have managed that at home.
Leaving themselves open for lawsuits of false advertising?? 
10:45 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com
wrote:
I'm not the best person to make contact with them directly but that
shouldn't stop anyone else from asking them to release their Open Source
code if they haven't already done so.
Just keep in mind that they only have obligations to release to customers
(i.e. people to whom they distributed binary versions), although they are
also required to *tell* customers of that possibility too.
10:47 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
I'm not the best person to make contact with them
directly but that
shouldn't stop anyone else from asking them to release their Open Source
code if they haven't already done so.
That would be an amazing way to make yet another MOTU.
Out of curiosity, why is it that every time some vendor makes use of
free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"?
Is it the only thing that interests you?
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
11:11 p.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 7:47 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
MOTU will have to come round eventually if they want to sell their
hardware to the majority of computer users on the planet. Android accounts
for the largest slice of mobile OS market and over 45% of tablet users.
Android uses ALSA so if MOTU want their cards to work with Android OS they
have to release ALSA drivers at some point.
Anyway this situation is completely different. Fairlight are shipping
products that already use Linux software. They have a legal obligation
under the GPL.
I'm not the best person to make contact with
them directly but that
shouldn't stop anyone else from asking them to release their Open Source
code if they haven't already done so.
That would be an amazing way to make yet another MOTU.
Out of curiosity, why is it that every time some
vendor makes use of
free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"?
Is it the only thing that interests you?
No one did anything about Korg or Yamaha for all these years. What makes
you think that it's everyones first reaction?
Look at Groove OS too. Rui and Christian fed back a huge amount of their
code into their existing open source solutions so nobody was upset if
Lionstracs didn't publicly release all their code in a single package.
In this case Fairlight may just not be aware of their explicit legal
obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for
example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy
alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
If there was any resistance or requirements at any point for the issue to
be escalated to real lawyers then it would be very hard for them to say
they were not aware.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
11:30 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
What makes you think I was referring to either Korg or Yamaha?
Anyway this situation is completely different.
Fairlight are shipping
products that already use Linux software. They have a legal obligation
under the GPL.
To you? Are you their client?
Out of
curiosity, why is it that every time some vendor makes use of
free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"?
Is it the only thing that interests you?
No one did anything about Korg or Yamaha for all these years. What makes
you think that it's everyones first reaction? Look at Groove OS too. Rui and Christian fed back a
huge amount of their
code into their existing open source solutions so nobody was upset if
Lionstracs didn't publicly release all their code in a single package.
They still have the obligation, as you've just said yourself. You
might as well go after them. Or are we back to the old tried double
standards? :)
In this case Fairlight may just not be aware of their
explicit legal
obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for
example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy
alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm>
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
25 Oct
25 Oct
12:10 a.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 8:30 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
If you care to do some research Dominic has personally offered to do just
that for anyone who was interested even going so far as to offer to put
all his applicable code online. Given that Christian and Rui wrote the
Majority of it and have already opensourced most of the useful stuff there
doesn't seem to be any specific purpose to push harder than that. The code
is open and both Rui and christian are very active contributors to LAD so
logic and rational suggests there is nothing to be gained by jumping up
and down about the issue.
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
Are you suggesting that there is nothing to be gained from politely
alerting companies of their legal obligations before they get into
trouble?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
What makes you think I was referring to either Korg or Yamaha?
Above you said "every time". I was pointing out that it is not everytime.
Anyway this situation is completely different.
Fairlight are shipping
products that already use Linux software. They have a legal obligation
under the GPL.
To you? Are you their client?
Out of
curiosity, why is it that every time some vendor makes use of
free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"?
Is it the only thing that interests you?
No one did anything about Korg or Yamaha for all these years. What makes
you think that it's everyones first reaction? Look at Groove
OS too. Rui and Christian fed back a huge amount of their
code into their existing open source solutions so nobody was upset if
Lionstracs didn't publicly release all their code in a single package.
They still have the obligation, as you've just said yourself. You
might as well go after them. Or are we back to the old tried double
standards? :)
In this case
Fairlight may just not be aware of their explicit legal
obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for
example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy
alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm>
12:21 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com
wrote:
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
They have no legal obligation to anyone except their customers. How does it
appear (and more importantly how does it help) if an essentially random 3rd
party weighs in? That's a genuine non-rhetorical question
There's no way to know, but its entirely possible that there isn't a single
modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system. They could be
running an entirely stock version of everything, and be under zero
obligation to do anything except include a small note somewhere to
customers that if they really want to download the source code to glibc,
the kernel etc, then look in the following places. This is precisely what
Apple does with Darwin, which includes quite a number of GPL'ed components.
1:36 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
There's no way to know, but its entirely possible
that there isn't a single
modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system.
Exactly. We simply have no idea what's inside. Hence starting the
discussion with an assumption that they have any obligations is just
boring fanboyism.
Patrick, please take your belligerent attitude elsewhere.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
1:45 a.m.
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 19:41:20 Alexandre Prokoudine did opine:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
TBT Alexandre, I think I'm the one who may have broached the subject first,
more out of morbid curiosity than anything else, as my history goes back
around 20 years. You among others have given ample reason why the subject
is a dead horse & we should quit beating on it.
There's no way to know, but its entirely
possible that there isn't a
single modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system.
Exactly. We simply have no idea what's inside. Hence starting the
discussion with an assumption that they have any obligations is just
boring fanboyism.
Patrick, please take your belligerent attitude elsewhere. Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up!
Friends don't let friends use Windows 95.
2:12 a.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 10:36 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
Perhaps some of us do...
There's no way to know, but its entirely
possible that there isn't a
single
modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system.
Exactly. We simply have no idea what's inside. Hence starting the
discussion with an assumption that they have any obligations is just
boring fanboyism.
They do have obligations to the GPL and IMO informing them officially of
that while also offering to provide assistance if they have any questions
is a positive thing to do.
In addition the opportunity for companies that use Linux Audio software
and open source for their hardware solutions to feedback their advances to
the wider community is a solid goal to aim for.
Patrick, please take your belligerent attitude
elsewhere.
If you don't like the way I come across you are under no obligation to
read my posts.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
3:29 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:12 AM, various people wrote:
tough words
I'm not aiming this at you Patrick, or Alexandre, or anyone in
particular, but it never ceases to amaze me how the LAU and LAD lists
are some of the nastiest, most brutal mailing lists around. What is it
that makes people so harsh about Linux Audio? I don't for a second
think that this attitude is something inherent to mailing list
communication as I'm subscribed to various mailing lists that are
perfectly civil. I'm beginning to think the idea of a "Linux Audio
Community" is nothing more than a contrivance and that everyone is
just cranky at being stuck together in some broken virtual elevator.
Nonetheless, if "we" are so worried about promoting Linux Audio, then
these lists are one of the few public points of exchange between
developers, the existing user base, and potential new users. If every
conversation devolves into bitter and pointed tit for tats who the
hell would stick around?
Not great "marketing" I have to say.
Back to the topic at hand, the fairlight website doesn't give any
detail at all into how linux is used in their systems. I can't find
any recent info but their FPGA cards seem to run on Windows XP so
unless they have developed new drivers it may be that linux is not
involved in the plugin process at all. I only posted out of technical
curiosity more than anything in the hope someone knew something more
about their systems.
3:44 a.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 12:29 pm, michael noble wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:12 AM, various people
wrote:
The LAU list is a general topic mailing list which has a proven history of
being a brutal debate environment. It is what it is. Maybe it's because
musos and artistic types tend to be more passionate than most other
personality types. Maybe it's because people on this list tend to say
what's on their minds more than other lists. Maybe it's because Linux
Audio peeps are really just a bunch of a-holes that can't work with normal
non aggressive people ;-)
Maybe that's why Linux Audio Devs and Users are attracted to Linux Audio
in the first place?
tough words
I'm not aiming this at you Patrick, or Alexandre, or anyone in
particular, but it never ceases to amaze me how the LAU and LAD lists
are some of the nastiest, most brutal mailing lists around. What is it
that makes people so harsh about Linux Audio? I don't for a second
think that this attitude is something inherent to mailing list
communication as I'm subscribed to various mailing lists that are
perfectly civil. I'm beginning to think the idea of a "Linux Audio
Community" is nothing more than a contrivance and that everyone is
just cranky at being stuck together in some broken virtual elevator.
Nonetheless, if "we" are so worried about promoting Linux Audio, then
these lists are one of the few public points of exchange between
developers, the existing user base, and potential new users. If every
conversation devolves into bitter and pointed tit for tats who the
hell would stick around?
Not great "marketing" I have to say.
Back to the topic at hand, the fairlight website
doesn't give any
detail at all into how linux is used in their systems. I can't find
any recent info but their FPGA cards seem to run on Windows XP so
unless they have developed new drivers it may be that linux is not
involved in the plugin process at all. I only posted out of technical
curiosity more than anything in the hope someone knew something more
about their systems.
IIUC the Linux part of the system is more like a communication protocol
for the physical controls to communicate with the FPGA. It's unlikely that
they have developed closed source Linux drivers for their audio cards yet
or that they ever will.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
4:01 a.m.
On 10/25/2012 03:29 AM, michael noble wrote:
it never ceases to amaze me how the LAU and LAD lists
are some of the nastiest, most brutal mailing lists around.
what? give e.g. lkml.org or other lists at vger.kernel.org a go for a
day. I'm sure you'll be back with the nice and polite linux audio
community in no time :)
Cheers!
robin
5:38 a.m.
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 23:31:48 Robin Gareus did opine:
On 10/25/2012 03:29 AM, michael noble wrote:
lkml is a party, where linus is undisputed king. Now if you want an out
and out brawl, try the Python-list. Those guys can tell you to go to hell
in a heartbeat, and its game on in very profane language for 3 or 4 days.
Nobody there ever tried to tell you to go to hell in such flowery language
that you looked forward to the trip. That is one thing our now expired
Senator Byrd was a past master at.
Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up!
<cas> Mercury: gpm isn't a very good web browser. fix it.
it never ceases to amaze me how the LAU and LAD
lists
are some of the nastiest, most brutal mailing lists around.
what? give e.g. lkml.org or other lists at vger.kernel.org a go for a
day. I'm sure you'll be back with the nice and polite linux audio
community in no time :)
Cheers!
robin 
4:08 a.m.
On 25/10/12 09:29, michael noble wrote:
I'm beginning to think the idea of a "Linux
Audio
Community" is nothing more than a contrivance and that everyone is
just cranky at being stuck together in some broken virtual elevator.
Nonetheless, if "we" are so worried about promoting Linux Audio, then
"Linux audio" here has people who are very passionate supporters of copyleft,
GPL style licenses, people who are equally passionate in the belief that these
licenses are not truly free, and are too restrictive, and people who work in
linux and are very happy to use closed source, copyrighted applications as long
as they are properly supported on linux.
These three categories are all valid linux audio users, yet their views on
licensing are very different, and their views on what "linux audio" is, or
should be, are very different. Promoting each of these branches of linux audio
is done in very different ways, and sometimes incompatible ways. Hence the
passionate level of debate on these topics.
Simon
2:03 a.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 9:21 am, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Patrick Shirkey
<pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com
It surely doesn't hurt if the "Linux Audio Consortium" sends a friendly
and polite note to effectively say...
"Hey, we noticed you are using Linux and open source software in your
audio/multimedia hardware and we thought you might be interested in the
following information regarding GPL and various legal obligations. While
you are reading we have also included some background info about the use
of Linux and Open Source for Audio Hardware."
wrote:
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to
take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do
the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
They have no legal obligation to anyone except their customers. How does
it
appear (and more importantly how does it help) if an essentially random
3rd
party weighs in? That's a genuine non-rhetorical question
There's no way to know, but its entirely possible
that there isn't a
single
modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system. They could be
running an entirely stock version of everything, and be under zero
obligation to do anything except include a small note somewhere to
customers that if they really want to download the source code to glibc,
the kernel etc, then look in the following places. This is precisely what
Apple does with Darwin, which includes quite a number of GPL'ed
components.
Officially informing them of that obligation, while also potentially
offering to assist with any questions they might have provides an
opportunity for the Consortium to provide a layer of "service" that
*might* give companies that choose to use Linux and Open Source software
for Audio/Video/Multimedia some additional confidence that they are not
going to do their reputations/Brand any damage with negative publicity in
the unlikely event of a legal challenge.
It's not a threat just an opportunity to reach out and potentially give
them the confidence to contribute directly rather than keeping *all* their
advances to themselves for fear of loosing a competitive advantage or
getting themselves into hot water with authors of code that they might
build on.
It's just a way for the company to say. We acknowledge that we are
building on Open source technology and IP and we are prepared to be
transparent about our use of it.
If all the businesses that use Linux Audio Software are actively
contributing back into the community then we have greater leverage for
positive publicity and it's highly probable that everyone will gain
through the shared IP and knowledge.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
1:32 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
Are you suggesting that there is nothing to be gained from politely
alerting companies of their legal obligations before they get into
trouble?
In the first place, I'm suggesting that you stop using "we as
community" and go back to the honest "I as a person".
Having said that, I quite admire how you can keep your face straight
while suggesting to "alert companies of their legal obligations before
they get into trouble" by using an organization (FSF) whose primary
function is to get companies into trouble over breach of GPL terms.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
In this case Fairlight may just not be aware of their
explicit legal
obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for
example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy
alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm>
2:07 a.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 10:32 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to
take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do
the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
Are you suggesting that there is nothing to be gained from politely
alerting companies of their legal obligations before they get into
trouble?
In the first place, I'm suggesting that you stop using "we as
community" and go back to the honest "I as a person".
Is this not a community mailing list?
In this case Fairlight may just not be aware of their
explicit legal
obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if,
for
example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical
copy
alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm>
Having said that, I quite admire how you can keep your
face straight
while suggesting to "alert companies of their legal obligations before
they get into trouble" by using an organization (FSF) whose primary
function is to get companies into trouble over breach of GPL terms.
You're confused because I have stated several times already that IMO it is
more useful for the Consortium to take on that role.
Gene suggested that it might be something for the FSF to look into. I
think that the Consortium could save some time and hassle and increase
goodwill by reaching out to companies and businesses that use Linux Audio
and Open Source Software.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
24 Oct
24 Oct
11:28 p.m.
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 17:16:20 Patrick Shirkey did opine:
Gene wrote:
Not much has changed in 20 years then I'd have to say. And, I'd guess that
to effect any real, draw a line in the sand results, that query should
probably come from the FSF, whom I think has power of attorney over 99% of
the kernel code and libraries. But we both know that Aussie companies tend
to do their own thing and may need to be prodded gently by the AU office of
the FSF if there is such a thing.
I don't have an oar in this water personally, but it seems someone here
should know who to contact at the FSF to "get the ball off center if not
actually rolling" ;-)
Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up!
QOTD:
"When she hauled ass, it took three trips."
While I'm
100% in agreement Patrick, I'll have to confess that my
first thought was the question of a GPL violation. Fairlight or
Farlight has if my memory can be trusted, a rep for keeping their
code locked well away from prying eyes even when it was running on
some M68k hardware that looked
a lot like a big box amiga.
I'll get me coat...
I'm not the best person to make contact with them directly but that
shouldn't stop anyone else from asking them to release their Open Source
code if they haven't already done so.
My advice is to explain the positive aspects as well as the legal
aspects. Gene is right that their reputation proceeds them (unfairlight
?) but they have a new CEO who may not be aware of their legal
obligations in regards to the GPL and open source. Just don't expect
them to move quickly as they have a fairly glacial internal culture and
they are pretty combative if cornered and poked.
11:55 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Not much has changed in 20 years then I'd have to
say. And, I'd guess that
to effect any real, draw a line in the sand results, that query should
probably come from the FSF, whom I think has power of attorney over 99% of
the kernel code and libraries. But we both know that Aussie companies tend
to do their own thing and may need to be prodded gently by the AU office of
the FSF if there is such a thing.
Yes, sending FSF after a company would bring astonishing results. You
could also use hunting dogs, just for the fun of it.
It looks like Fairlight created an account at Github in March (without
public repositories so far):
https://github.com/fairlightinstruments
They could be up to something or maybe not. In any case, I'd hate to
be part of a community that initiates a conversation with legal
matters.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
25 Oct
25 Oct
12:15 a.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 8:55 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
My suggestion is to take ownership of the issue and only involve the FSF
if we as a community feel there is a severe breach. The Consortium was
originally setup to handle things like this and as far as I know is still
prepared to take on that responsibility if the need arise.
Not much has changed in 20 years then I'd
have to say. And, I'd guess
that
to effect any real, draw a line in the sand results, that query should
probably come from the FSF, whom I think has power of attorney over 99%
of
the kernel code and libraries. But we both know that Aussie companies
tend
to do their own thing and may need to be prodded gently by the AU office
of
the FSF if there is such a thing.
Yes, sending FSF after a company would bring astonishing results. You
could also use hunting dogs, just for the fun of it.
It looks like Fairlight created an account at Github
in March (without
public repositories so far):
https://github.com/fairlightinstruments
Fairlight Instruments is not Fairlight :-)
They could be up to something or maybe not. In any
case,
Peter Vogel Instruments (nee Fairlight Instruments) is definitely up to
something.
I'd hate to
be part of a community that initiates a conversation with legal
matters.
What are you scared of? That people might start arguing with each other?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
1:42 a.m.
On Wed, October 24, 2012 11:16 am, Kaza Kore wrote:
From: http://www.lionstracs.com/groove/
Surely there is no way they can truly claim to be able to handle all and
everything when nobody else seems to have managed that at home. Leaving
themselves open for lawsuits of false advertising??
Dale.
Here is the fine print from the same site:
"Windows based plug-ins run on the Groove X-R using the WinE environment,
and we provide a compatibility list of tested plugins to all users."
"NOTE: Some plug-in manufacturers use USB security systems e.g. Pace/iLok
and Steinberg/e-licenser. The user must check with the plug-in
manufacturer that there is full support provided by the plug-in
manufacturer for Linux® systems."
Sounds about like what is standard for linux.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
3:59 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Len Ovens
<len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
>
>
> "NOTE: Some plug-in manufacturers use USB security systems e.g. Pace/iLok™
EastWest/Quantum Leap still does, alas
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
4211
days inactive
4212
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
29 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Brett McCoy -
david -
Gene Heskett -
Kaza Kore -
Len Ovens -
michael noble -
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Davis -
Robin Gareus -
Simon Wise